https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIr...

And Hitler gained influence by waging wars of conquest against Europe. This just seems to be playing with words at this point.

They never agreed to stop refinement. Normally nuclear talks with countries goes like hand over your centrifuges and we'll make it worth your while. Country agrees and that's the end of it... Iran instead elected to waste well north of a trillion dollars in nuclear production and sanctions for some reason...

Money is a vehicle for funding more terrorism, missile production and nuclear processing. The hundreds of billions Trump was talking about took the form of foreign investments something that has been tried in the past and mostly fails due to the mafia state like nature of the regime.

If Iran wanted money all it has to do is give up terrorism and nukes and it will get all of the money it could ever dream of. What the regime really wants is to continue to wage revolution against the rest of the world. This isn't some hidden fact. They say it openly and demonstrate it continuously with their actions. It is embedded in the very name of the organization running Iran the "Islamic revolutionary guard core"... The entire point of its existence is guarding the revolution. The revolution against the rest of the world it has been waging for the last half century.

Of course it does.

Iranian regime only cares about terror. Its raison d'etre is externalizing the revolution. Iran continuously wastes its oil wealth on armed groups that wreak havoc throughout the region. Armed groups currently in the process of being rolled up now that the regime is unable to supply them.

What ambitions? What do the Iranians think they are getting out of this? Hormuz is a pointless card you play once and it quickly becomes ineffective as the route is bypassed. All Iran managed to gain by playing this was to have an economic hydrogen bomb explode in their face as they are now unable to export oil. Sort of makes banking failures that sparked protests and subsequent massacres of Jan 8th and 9th seem like a stick of TNT in comparison.

It's important to remember that not only is "the cloud" just "someone else's computer", but that that computer is a '286 PC with a 20MB MFM hard drive.

The JCPOA capped enrichment to 3.67% until 2030 and imposed stockpile and centrifuge limits. They kept enriching the entire time while respecting agreed upon limits.

They were enriching the whole time. What changed was the ramp to blow thru agreed upon limits.

My personal belief after hearing a public statement made by someone on the Iranian side of the JCPOA they were always going for a nuke and JCPOA was seen as a vehicle to that end. It provided the Iranians with sanctions relief giving them money, time and space to pursue all of the necessary industrial process and delivery system productions to enable the regime to become a nuclear weapon state when ready to do so.

The nuclear sanctions and capital expenditures on related infrastructure cost them north of a trillion dollars... kind of hard to swallow the prospect of spending so much money and not actually meaning it in the first place. The regime is ideologically close to Nazis. They openly seek world domination, kill the Jews and subjugation of anyone who isn't them. Probably in everyone's best interests to keep the regime from getting nukes regardless of who the US president is.

Seeing regional states like Lebanon and Iraq assert themselves against Iranian terror groups and the possibility of freedom for Iranians themselves.

AI already helps us to surveil masses of humans, automate judgement of humans, trick and spam humans, automate crimes against humans and ultimately render humans obsolete. A more powerful AI would only serve to assist in doing all of these things more effectively.

I have no reason to doubt authoritarian dictatorships and corporations the world over will perfect the art of making sure super-intelligent AI wants to help in all the right ways.

Years ago around ChatGPT 4 release there was this notion being peddled the AI firms would have to be extra careful to vigilantly guard against escape of super intelligent AI. What was funny about this at the same time we all had a front row seat to OpenAI corrupting itself from within not due to the influence of some advanced superintelligence but merely the simple greed of a self absorbed sociopath.

What Amodei and others are worried about is the pending IPO.

This wasn't just an innocent bug where someone overlooked something or did a typo it was a design failure. Memory safety is being oversold especially the data race aspect when it does not prevent race conditions. Nobody cares about CS pedantry they care about correct operation and rust doesn't provide it.

This is the criticism I have for rust. Its only selling point is the memory safety thing which is in itself insufficient to justify rewriting everything in a different language with commensurate risks of introducing bugs in the process. What is needed are better analysis tools and better means of imposing constraints to enable correct operation across all concerns not just a single one. This means better tooling not playing pointless musical chair games with languages.

I think before long AI driven proof assistants will make all of this rather moot with rust being too little too late to the party.

Do the Rust developers know that?

I accepted your CISA reference. I'll accept references from other similar organizations or law enforcement. I am unwilling to defer to Anthropic as they have a clear conflict of interest with billions of dollars on the line and a track record of manipulative behavior.

Having said this I remain disappointed in the continued failure to read your own references. This is a report titled "Detecting and countering misuse of AI" it speaks in general terms about AI and misuse of AI services for crime. It is not focused entirely on the distillation issue by leading Chinese AI firms.

The quote you referenced:

"These groups then often sell that access through brokers, which often feed into fraudulent AI reseller networks that rotate in new stolen API keys and session tokens until they exhaust their usage. Malicious actors also use or purchase these stolen API keys and session tokens from brokers for their cyber attack operations."

Is in reference to the section on crime and the use of AI to commit crimes under the heading "AI supply chain as target, loot, and attack compute". This is separate from the Chinese distillation allegations.

In fact NONE of the named distillation campaigns described on pg147 thru the end of the report GTG 16005, GTG-16002, GTG-16001, GTG-16006, GTG-16008, GTG-16012, GTG-16003 say anything whatsoever about stolen credit cards or stolen credentials. I wonder why that is? Why does CISA not mention the stolen credit cards and stolen credentials? Perhaps because it never happened?

This is general language that speaks to "unauthorized labs" without naming names and incurring associated libel per se liability. It is impossible from the language to link stolen cards and stolen credentials to any particular or any subset of AI firms because no such linkage is present in the text.

If you separately have credible evidence of stolen credit cards and stolen credentials being used by the relevant leading Chinese AI firms I am interested in learning more about it.

Please just stop digging. You obviously just CTRL+F for keyword and cut and paste without even bothering to understand the context of the statements. This same sloppiness is pervasive throughout your statements.

The underlying argument you are peddling is also rather crazy in its own right. A "distillation attack" does not require stolen credit cards or stolen credentials. The modality of access to the teacher model is not even relevant to its definition. It doesn't stop being a "distillation attack" even if the lab paid the normal rate for access to the model.

That someone somewhere performing distillation to improve their models uses a stolen credit card to do so is irrelevant... It doesn't in any way justify calling distillation an attack.

Imagine if I decided going to a supermarket and filling the shopping cart up to the brim would be called a "shopping attack" ... when someone calls my bullshit term out I turn around and point to some rando who filled their cart and didn't pay on their way out to justify the attack terminology... even though most people who fill their shopping carts to the brim and do pay are still performing a "shopping attack".
This is the exact same logic you are attempting to peddle here. It make no sense.

This is an oxymoron. A market that peddles in stolen shit isn't a grey market it is a black market.

All of this equipment is a fire risk... panels, wiring, connectors, high current electronics and batteries. Personally I wouldn't keep any of it in my home. Seen enough shit burn down because a bug crawled into the wrong section or a weak crimp lead to catastrophic failure.. a solar panel develops a hotspot due to micro cracking and catches fire. It's insane what the smallest defect can cause in high current DC environments. Large LFP batteries while much safer than EV batteries can still fail and when they do off-gas hazardous flourides and insane amounts of hydrogen gas.

There are risks people are willing to take in exchange for something of value to them. People are willing to accept dangers of driving in exchange for being able to get around and do the things they want to do. Home storage on the other hand provides no substantive benefit from any sort of policy or grid architecture perspective... it is suboptimal from a cost perspective and an unnecessary safety risk.. Utility scale ESS and PV have in excess of a 2x cost advantage over residential without any of the commensurate risks to residential dwellings. It isn't something I don't understand how anyone can justify.

I do understand some people do it as a hobby or want to be off-grid to prepare for the next zombie apocalypse. Beyond the fringe bullshit it makes no sense from either a safety or cost perspective.

Energy rates have increased 70% over the same time. Good job California.

The reference you provided does NOT support your statements. There is no assertion made credentials are being stolen.

This is getting weird. The data is being used to train an external model Anthropic does not control. Of course people with control over that model can do whatever they want to it because it is their model not Anthropics. No safeguards are being removed from Anthropic or being bypassed at Anthropic.

Your statement "when you use industrial-scale to intentionally break guardrails and get the AI engine to essentially spill its secrets" lacks a nexus to reality.

Again it does no such thing neither does the reference you provided support your assertion. To quote the reference:

"Further, China-based AI companies use a gray market of proxies known as âoetransfer stationsâ to bypass U.S. AI companiesâ(TM) geographic restrictions, breach terms of use, evade safeguards, and undermine traceability."

It says nothing about stolen or hacked credentials.

The stolen / hacked credential claims seem to be entirely an invention of your own mind. Further there is no universe in which distillation constitutes IPR theft.

Stick to the facts and stop peddling bullshit.

Your statements were pretty clear:

"The privacy nightmare not withstanding people actually *want* Smart TVs."

"The trend for home simplification is clear among wider consumers, so it's a hard pill to swallow to tell them to buy a commercial sign display, and then bolt another box to it for functionality... and then they need to trust that other box."

Now you claim "they" are really looking for a "smart experience" whatever the heck this means when before you repeatedly explicitly said "Smart TV".

Either people are looking for simplification and "*want* smart TVs" or they don't actually care because they can just pick up a cheap HDMI stick and get the same thing externally. Pick one. Not caring undermines your assertion that they care.

Again the evidence against simplicity is large amounts of unnecessary complexity and fragmentation in the usability of these devices.

You keep contradicting yourself. On one hand people want "smart integrated experiences" ... although I'm not fully certain what this even means... yet on the other hand they get a dumb, fragmented disintegrated experience which you also assert doesn't matter. I don't know how to square these things. Seemingly one obvious contradiction after another.